ScIence 和 Nature 在国人心目中是具有同等的至高无上地位的圣刊，历年年底他们都要评出当年科学上的突破性进展，也就必然引起国人的瞩目，甚至会影响国家有关科学研究基金的导向。今年 Science 打破历年的惯例，不再闭门造车，而是要广开言路，听取科学家的意见，也算给我们这个被认为缺少民主的国家做做示范。 2008 年 Science 曾把诱导性多能干细胞（ IPS ）的研究推为当年的突破性进展，老朽曾因根据本人在植物中的研究，在本博客发过几篇对此类研究的评论性博文。所以对此问题一直很关心。另外虽对刘实这个科学狂人批评过，但对他的洞察力还是很欣赏很佩服的。而且我在植物中的科研结论与他的一些科研成果又有许多正好互相印证的不谋而合，所以也一直很关注他对 IPS 的批评。恰好，看到 Cell Stem Cell 发的证明诱导性多能干细胞在培养条件下发生染色体异常变化的论文及 Cell 发的相关新闻评论。这就使我想到这进一步证明了刘的有关文章。 12 月 9 日 看到 Science 就评选 2010 年科学突破性进展征求意见后，就写了篇《 Reprogramming out of the iPS detour 》，希望不要再将此类研究作为突破性进展。谁知此后不断有人写意见推荐刘实的有关发现。 12 月 13 日 一个署名 Adam 的以给 Science 编辑信的形式发表意见，说刘实的研究只是科学的侧流，不应该让侧流干扰主流科学，应把提名刘实的评论统统删掉。我看到后很生气，当即也给编辑写了信（没认真考虑和修改，英文有些蹩脚），亮明我自己的身份，问 Adam 是谁？指出如果编辑部只想听自己喜欢的意见，不想听取不同的意见，就将我们的意见删除。此后还是不断有提名刘实的意见发表。 12 月 14 日 编辑部以 Science Staff 的名义声明，欢迎每一个人参加讨论，希望保留每个人的意见。但此后就再也看不到新的意见发表。于是我就又写了篇题目为 The Breakthrough of the Year in Science: Does iPS stand for incorrect programming syndrome? 的评论意见想在今天放上去，但当发布时却显示出，每个评论不能超过 300 字，于是我就改成了 3 篇重发。这次虽发出了，但文后却出现了一行字 Message awaits moderator approval ，也就是说要经过管理人员审查后才能发布，这在以前是没有的。但等今天下午我再进去看时，不仅发评论的窗口不见了，连所有意见也不见了。看来是停止听取意见了，为什么不预告呢，这是人家的自由，人家的权利。 看来所有的民主和自由都不是不受限制的，连讨论科学上的突破性进展都如此，还用说其他的吗？美国的民主自由，英国的民主自由都有自己的标准，为什么别的国家非要按他们的标准呢？ 附件是 Science 征求 2010 年科学突破性进展意见的专栏和我所记录下的所有评论的复印件，最后是我的三个没正式发布的评论。因我记录的最早的评论是 2010 年 12 月 6 日 ，故将题目定为 10 天民主。 Reader Opinions Name the 2010 Breakthrough by Science Staff | 60 comments (http://talk.sciencemag.org/nodes/btoy2010.html?s=ghp) Email Print | More Every December, our editors and News staff face the challenge of reviewing what science has accomplished around the world in the past 12 months, so as to select our breakthroughs of the year. The task is an invigorating one, providing a powerful reminder of both the enormous scope and the continual advance of science. Ardipithecus ramidus, reprogramming cells, and human genetic variation topped our lists in recent years. Now it's your turn: What would you dub the major scientific breakthrough of 2010? We're eager to hear your thoughts and will be sharing our picks with you soon! Comments ( Commenting Terms and Conditions ) These postings do not necessarily represent the views/opinions of Science . 2010/12/15 15：00成为空白 Keming Cui I say iPS is incorrect programming syndrome because it is indeed a syndrome of irresponsible research. As a botanist studying developmental biology for a life time and thus know some botanical cloning and reprogramming (if I can use these modern terms to characterizing our traditional studies) I found it is truly amazing that someone would rather call an neoplastic transformation as a regenerative reprogramming and regard cancerous cells as therapeutic cells. Fortunately, science is about searching for truth and truth will prevail eventually. Many studies revealing the true nature of iPS cells and iPS reprogramming have been published this year. Collectively these studies supported Dr. Lius discoveries on iPS cells and iPS reprogramming, even though they generally do not cite Dr. Lius PUBLICATIONS. Why? How could they do so? How could the journals allow them to do so? Finding out answers to the above questions may lead to a more profound breakthrough in science, a breakthrough lead to the establishment of responsible research. However, this breakthrough may not come this year but no one can stop its coming in the future. Period! Message awaits moderator approval 2010/12/15 , 9:02:45 Keming Cui We owe Shi V. Liu a big deal in breaking through iPS hype I have suggested that diagnosing iPS as incorrect programming syndrome is a breakthrough in science. Now I wish to say that it is not easy to reach this diagnosis which may still be refused by some iPS patients. However, history will show that diagnosis is absolutely correct and we owe Shi V. Liu a big deal in breaking through the iPS hype. Comparing what Dr. Liu has stated in his pioneering PUBLICATIONS and what others have discovered later, I found that Dr. Lius DISCOVERIES are not only very correct but also more insightful than all other studies reported in top journals! If Science Staff do not believe my assessment please spent a few days to read Dr. Lius PUBLICATIONS. I knew his PUBLICATIONS can be obtained free of charge and many people have already known his views on iPS in specific and cell life in general. Thus, if Science Staff still neglect Dr. Lius discoveries and even go ahead further promote flawed iPS research, a future breakthrough in science may come against Science when responsible research is demanded at all the levels, which I will continue in my part three of this long essay. Message awaits moderator approval 2010/12/15 ,9:02:07 Keming Cui The Breakthrough of the Year in Science: Does iPS stand for incorrect programming syndrome? Dear Science Staff, I agree with you 100% on your short but very clear request that contributors should keep their comments relevant to the topic of this year's breakthrough. What is this years breakthrough? What can be this years breakthrough as compared with or connected with previous breakthroughs? Let us recall what breakthroughs were made in Science recently. On the left side of this comment collecting window I saw 2008 Breakthrough of the Year: Reprogramming Cells. Apparently it refers mainly to the so-called discovery of iPS cells or iPS reprogramming. What are iPS cells and iPS reprogramming? Shi V. Liu concluded (as evidenced in many PUBLICATIONS collected at http://im1.biz/iPS.htm ) that iPS cells are NOT induced pluripotent stem cells but incorrectly programmed stem cells or man-made cancer stem cells. Thus, iPS reprogramming is essentially an incorrect programming syndrome. If that diagnosis is correct (which will be further argued in my next comment because of the space limitation here), then the CONFIRMATION of Lius discovery by others in this year is really a very relevant breakthrough in science for Science. Message awaits moderator approval 2010/12/15 , 9:01:31 標記 Science Staff We thank everyone for their contributions to this discussion, but urge people to please keep their comments relevant to the topic of this year's breakthrough. Thank you. 2010/12/14 , 8:04:38 Shapiro Another Set of Breakthrough Discoveries Arranged by Time For long time DNA/chromosome segregation has been regarded as a random process. However in early 1990s Dr. Liu has proposed that DNA/chromosome segregation should follow a regular pattern in that the older DNA template strand/chromosome is retained by the true mother cell while the younger DNA template strand/chromosome is distributed into the true daughter cells. He defines the true mother cell as the cell which has reproduced a daughter cell and often remains live to reproduce more daughter cells, base on his continuous tracking of individual bacteria and his pioneering discovery on bacterial cell life. However, Dr. Lius discovery was rejected for publication in many western journals he tried. Nevertheless his succeeded in publishing his discovery on bacterial life and also the above DNA/chromosome segregation hypothesis in 1999 Science in China. He further interpreted his findings in a series articles published in Logical Biology and, more importantly, in a patent application filed at 2000 and granted in 2004 by US Patent and Trademark Office. In 2005 Dr. Liu submitted to Nature a Hypothesis type article titled as Linking DNA aging with cell aging and combining genetics with epigenetics. Using in silico labeling, Dr. Liu depicted in very details the pattern of DNA/chromosome segregation during cell reproduction and also insightfully delineated the respective contribution of genetic and epigenetic factors to the inheritance and adaptation. Liu published this paper in Logical Biology (5:51-55, 2005) after rejection by Nature. Later Dr. Liu also published a paper entitled A theoretical framework for understanding biotic aging from molecule to organism in multicellular life (Logical Biology 5:109-116, 2005) which will prove to be one of his most significant publications and a historically landmark paper in biology. Tracking down later publications in mainstream journals I found that Dr. Lius discoveries very solid. These can be proved by comparing some high-profile publications appeared in some top journals including Nature, for examples: Armakolas, A., and A. J. Klar. 2006. Cell type regulates selective segregation of mouse chromosome 7 DNA strands in mitosis. Science 311:1146-9. Conboy, M. J., A. O. Karasov, and T. A. Rando. 2007. High incidence of non-random template strand segregation and asymmetric fate determination in dividing stem cells and their progeny. PLoS Biol 5:1120-1126 Falconer, E. et al. 2010. Identification of sister chromatids by DNA template strand sequences. Nature 463: 93-97. However, my view may be biased. Thus, I encourage people to read these publications and compare them with Lius earlier publications and then voice some opinions here. 2010/12/14 , 5:42:14 dxyue After reading the references posted in the previous comments, I believe that Dr. Shi Liu should be given priority and be recognized for his pioneering work, which was published as early as 1999 then confirmed by Ackermann et al. 2010/12/14 , 3:39:09 HuaKe I am a scientific friend of Dr. Liu since 1983 when we were graduate classmates and know many detailed sides of his discoveries and, more importantly, his frustrations in communicating his discoveries to the mainstream. After decade of rejections by western journals of his fundamental discovery in life science - the breaking of the cell division dogma - he followed my advice by seeking review from a different peer group - the Chinese scientists in the mainland of China. His paper, based on ones rejected by Science, Nature, and PNAS, was reviewed in China for over one and half year and then accepted. After the acceptance of his English version, the editor invited him to translate the accepted English version into Chinese. Thus, his landmark paper on bacterial life was published in both English and Chinese in 1999 in Science in China - Life Science. That discovery, in my view, deserves a Nobel Prize. To further communicate his discovery to wide readership and to promote freedom and constructive debate in scientific communication Dr. Liu launched the world-first (I believe) open-access scientific journal that is also open for unrestricted post-publication peer and public review and comment. He named the journal as Logical Biology because he realized that many biologists have been occupied with tiny details of data but lost big picture of logic and thus often see trees but lose sight of the forest. He published a Correspondence in Nature (I forget the citation for it) to make this revolution in scientific publishing known by outside world. Later I actually saw some other scientists published their often ground-breaking discoveries in Logical Biology. I think Science has done a great thing by asking opinions on nomination of the Breakthrough of the Year. I just wish that the actual selection process will indeed consider the opinions expressed by the various readers. Let us hope a real breakthrough will indeed happen in Science! 2010/12/14 , 1:13:01 Ray ZHANG I belive that tumors grow their own blood vessels is false !....the vessels may be derived from the residual normal stem cell in the tumors? 2010/12/13 , 23:16:28 UFO Revolution in scientific publishing yields fruitful results Recently I read some articles on open review in some traditional journals. However, as far as I know, a double open (open-access and open-review) scientific publishing model has been implemented by Logical Biology a decade ago ( http://logibio.com ). Actually, there was a Correspondence by Shi V. Liu in Nature (403: 592, 2000) which specifically call for dramatic change in scientific publishing. Ten years have passed. I found Logical Biology and other Truthfinding Cyberpress (TFCP) journals ( http://im1.biz ) actually published many ground-breaking discoveries that were only being confirmed in some incomplete fashions by publications in some traditional top journals. TFCP journals also published a lot of insightful articles criticizing the scientific mistakes and ethical problems in publications appeared in other journals, often after the rejections of these criticisms by the other journals. If one pays respect to true discoveries and genuine knowledge one may find that the best science may be found in some sidestream of scientific publishing. Seeing is believing. Go to some revolutionized publication platforms for scientific communications and to see the true front-line of scientific research. 2010/12/13 , 12:21:52 新潮 Revolution in scientific publishing yields fruitful results Recently I read some articles on open review in some traditional journals. However, as far as I know, a double open (open-access and open-review) scientific publishing model has been implemented by Logical Biology a decade ago ( http://logibio.com ). Actually, there was a Correspondence by Shi V. Liu in Nature (403: 592, 2000) which specifically call for dramatic change in scientific publishing. Ten years have passed. I found Logical Biology and other Truthfinding Cyberpress (TFCP) journals ( http://im1.biz ) actually published many ground-breaking discoveries that were only being confirmed in some incomplete fashions by publications in some traditional top journals. TFCP journals also published a lot of insightful articles criticizing the scientific mistakes and ethical problems in publications appeared in other journals, often after the rejections of these criticisms by the other journals. If one pays respect to true discoveries and genuine knowledge one may find that the best science may be found in some sidestream of scientific publishing. Seeing is believing. Go to some revolutionized publication platforms for scientific communications and to see the true front-line of scientific research. 2010/12/13 12:17:04 訪客 Revolution in scientific publishing yields fruitful results Recently I read some articles on open review in some traditional journals. However, as far as I know, a double open (open-access and open-review) scientific publishing model has been implemented by Logical Biology a decade ago ( http://logibio.com ). Actually, there was a Correspondence by Shi V. Liu in Nature (403: 592, 2000) which specifically call for dramatic change in scientific publishing. Ten years have passed. I found Logical Biology and other Truthfinding Cyberpress (TFCP) journals ( http://im1.biz ) actually published many ground-breaking discoveries that were only being confirmed in some incomplete fashions by publications in some traditional top journals. TFCP journals also published a lot of insightful articles criticizing the scientific mistakes and ethical problems in publications appeared in other journals, often after the rejections of these criticisms by the other journals. If one pays respect to true discoveries and genuine knowledge one may find that the best science may be found in some sidestream of scientific publishing. Seeing is believing. Go to some revolutionized publication platforms for scientific communications and to see the true front-line of scientific research. 2010/12/13 , 12:16:14 Dr. Honest Some people have expressed their support for nominating Dr. Shi Lius fundamental discovery in cell biology as the Breakthrough of the Year. I think, at the science level, all of the mentioned biology discoveries made by Liu are outstanding and have far-reaching implications. However, as a clinician, I felt most excited by Dr. Lius discovery on cancer, especially his unique view on the multigenesis of multisite cancer. This is because it has profound implications with the treatment options for the patient and may change the outcome of the therapy. The conventional view of regarding most if not all the multisite cancer as a result of metastasis has mandated aggressive whole body chemotherapy or radiation therapy once a primary (may not be true primary) cancer is found. However, our direct observations and some studies have shown that the outcome of patients accepting such treatment may not be better than those who did not go through this harsh treatment. If the (primary) cancer first detected is not the source of future spreading but an early and easy detection of some multigenerated cancer which may be rooted to some mutations in stem/progenitors cells already scattered in the different body parts over the development, then we really need to think what would be the best way to treat cancer patients. One thing that we have learned now is that cancer stem cells often resist conventional chemotherapy and can even come back more aggressively once the normal cells/immune system is jeopardized by the non-discriminating killing of all reproducing cells by the concessional chemotherapy. I would like to nominate an old discovery of Dr. Liu published in 2008 in Biology Direct as the Breakthrough of this Year because, if one read some recent publications in top journals carefully, one should realize Lius theory or hypothesis makes more sense and shed more light on some enigmas in cancer research. For reference of Dr. Lius original discovery on this, please read: Occurrence of cancer at multiple sites: Towards distinguishing multigenesis from metastasis (Biology Direct 3: 14, 2008; http://www.biology-direct.com/content/3/1/14 ) 2010/12/13 , 11:44:42 Keming Cui Dear Science Editors, I am retired professor from Peking University, China. Who is Adam? Be divided into mainstream science and sidestream science what oneself is absurd. In those early years Mendel and Darwin once were the sidestream scientists in those early years science as well, but the history prove that they are great real scientists. If you if want to listen to you love to listen to, presses Adam to say of do, chase our opinion deletions. 2010/12/13 , 9:08:43 標記 Adam Breakthrough of the Year: Is mainstream science being overflowed by sidestream science? Dear Science Editors, It is amazing that several comments appeared in this serious website have might have played an amusing Liu symphony. Please check if all these different comments were sent by one man. If that was true, then there might be a spammer going around. If that is not true, then this may reflect a situation that the dam protecting mainstream science is being eroded by sidestream science. What should Science do now? Block this erosion? Or Let the sidestream science overrun the mainstream science? I think Science is at a very critical and also dangerous moment. If the science running in the sidestream contains more truth than that pushed in the mainstream, blocking the break-in of this sidestream in front of millions of web watchers would be a high-risk action. But let the sidestream flood the mainstream, then a breakthrough in science is really happening before our eyes. 2010/12/13 , 5:14:47 popo Dear Science Editors, I am an undergraduate student in China and got to know Dr. Shi Liu two years ago via his blog articles on iPS reprogramming at a very popular stem cell communication website in China ( http://www.stemcell8.cn/forum.php ). I found his criticisms on some flawed research in iPS reprogramming interesting. By digging into his publications, I found that his capability of seeing through the hype in iPS research is well based on his solid discoveries on cell life including stem cells ( http://im1.biz/StemCell.htm ). Also, his idea on cell divisions is quite interesting and insightful. At least it really changed the way I think of cell life and also lead me to reach a balanced view on iPS cells. We may not agree with all of his ideas, but we will defend to death his right to express his ideas. In the world of science, the solely rule is truth rather than fame and position. Nobody is always right, even Newton and Eistein had mistakes and bad ideas. iPS is a newly emerging field, at present, it is difficult to gauge how it will develop in the future. Thus, criticism from the minority like Dr. Liu shuld be respected. Li 2010-12-12 , 19:19:11 Ray ZHANG direct transdifferentiation in vivo, hoping the future stem cell therapy will not transplant the foreign stem cell... 今天 , 7:14:21 Best Biology I am a layman to biology. However, by reading many articles in LIU shi ( 刘实 )s very popular blog in Chinese ( http://blog.sina.com.cn/im1 ), I am convinced that his key discovery on cell life cell cannnot be divided but is reproduced is the most significant discovery in life science. However, that discovery may not be suitable for the honor of The Breakthrough of the Year becauase is is a breakthrough of centuries. Just think about how far we need to go back to correct the textbooks in biology! 2010-12-11 , 2:20:51 Science from China Just found: Science in China leading Science on bacterial aging research Dear Editors of Science: Several comments (seem very solid) have introduced Dr. Lius discoveries on iPS cells and iPS reprogramming and wished to convince people to accept a claim that it is Dr. Luis original discoveries that have changed the course of iPS research. I am not sure other people in the field would be willing to accept this and thus ask Science to be careful in reaching a decision. At a minimum, Science editors should read Dr. Lius publications and compare them with other publications to see if the later discoveries were truly some repeated discoveries (with more data) of Dr. Liu original discoveries (based on his analysis of previous published but limited data). More importantly, I urge editors to use a correct definition on discovery and respect insightful discoveries made without great cost and even before the availability of the rich data. Please think of the discovery of double helix for DNA and the importance of theoretical discoveries in science. However, on the studying of bacterial aging, I found that Dr. Liu is indeed a true pioneer. This is because I have just found that his much insightful discovery on this topis was published in 1999 in Science in China a peer-reviewed top journal in China and his publication appeared in both the English and the Chinese editions of the journal. Thus, his discovery in this field is even years earlier than the so-called first discovery published in Science in 2003 and PloS Biology in 2005. I also leant that Dr. filed a patent in 2000 based on his discovery and that patent was granted in 2004 by the US PTO. How could the whole western world miss such a very important discovery published in China?! I am wondering and outraged. See references: Liu, S. V. 1999. Tracking bacterial growth in liquid media and a new bacterial life model. Science in China (Series C: Life Science) (Chinese) 29:571-579. Liu, S. V. 1999. Tracking bacterial growth in liquid media and a new bacterial life model. Science in China (Series C: Life Science) (English) 42:644-654. Liu, S. V. 2004. Method and apparatus for producing age-synchronized cells. US patent US6767734B Ackermann, M., S. C. Stearns, and U. Jenal. 2003. Senescence in a bacterium with asymmetric division. Science 300:1920 Stewart, E. J., R. Madden, G. Paul, and F. Taddei. 2005. Aging and death in an organism that reproduces by morphologically symmetric division. PLoS Biol 3:295-300 訪客 The turning point of iPS research From beginning, iPSCs have been regarded as induced pluripotent stem cells that are indistinguishable from embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and thus can be ethically and safely utilized for regenerative medicine. However, an alternative view has been expressed in publications (see titles listed at http://im1.biz/iPS.htm ) that iPSCs are incorrectly programmed stem cells and thus can be distinguished from ESCs. It was further pointed out that iPSCs are man-made cancer stem cells (mm-CSCs) and can cause cancer upon transplantation. Now distinctions between iPSCs and ESCs are found in many aspects. The cancer risk of iPSCs has also been increasingly recognized. A very recent publication in Cell Stem Cell (7: 521-531, 2010) demonstrated the chromosomal aberrations in human iPSCs that are present in early passages and thus likely originated from the parent cells. Thus, iPS research may finally come to a turning point. Instead of being treated as the fountain of youth for regenerative medicine, iPSCs may serve as models for cancer research. Let us learn from what Yamanaka did in Science on August 1, 2008. He publically thanked Shi V. Liu (see Science 321:641, 2008; http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5889/641.full ) when he learnt some criticisms (rejected by Science but published in Logical Biol.8: 57-61, 2008). He even went on reporting cancer risk of his own iPS cells (see for examples, Nature Biotechnol. 27: 743-745, 2009 and PNAS 107: 14152-14157, 2010). Let us turn cancerous iPSCs for some really good use. 2010-12-10 , 15:32:29 Keming Cui Reprogramming out of the iPS detour I am a botanist, but watching closely the development of iPS and cell reprogramming research I am very happy to see that, after spending four years in a huge detour in the iPS track, cell reprogramming is now back to some straight ways. Looking retrospectively, I think we all should thank one man: Shi V. Liu. This is because he is the only single person who has fight very hard against a huge hype in iPS research and made all the discoveries on the true nature of iPS cells and iPS reprogramming. All the later experimental observations at most serve as some kinds of confirmations of his insightful pioneering discoveries. To verify this, one just needs to click this link http://im1.biz/iPS.htm and reads articles published by Shi V. Liu and then compares his publications from Truthfinding Cyberpress with later publications in the top journals. From a botanic point of view, dedifferentiation, redifferentiation and transdifferentiaon are some normal ways of plant life. But reprogramming a differentiated cell all way back to undifferentiated state and then differentiated to a desired cell is not only a waste of energy but also an opportunity for introducing abnormality. Our past experience in studying plant has taught us how easy it is to induce a normal cell via dedifferentiation into callus which is similar to the cancer cell in animals. Therefore, I fully understand Shi V. Liu 's views and found it is hard to believe that his very correct views have been intentionally neglected by animal cloners and cell reprogrammers. History does repeat sometimes. I remembered the Breakthrough of the Year in 2006 was The Poincar ConjectureProved (Science 314: 1848-1849, 2006). But that breakthrough research was published four years earlier in a non-peer-reviewed web archive called arXiv which even has no impact factor. 2010-12-10 , 11:42:36 標記 Responsible Science The real Breakthrough of the Year is the significantly increased retractions by CNS which stands for Correcting Non-sense in Science. 2010-12-10 , 10:59:50 訪客 Solving the structure of eukariotic ribosome is a pretty major discovery. 2010-12-10 , 0:42:22 訪客 Tumors grow their own blood vessels. 2010-12-09 , 10:00:55 訪客 arsenic life 2010-12-09 , 5:48:31 webber Dennis Lo: detecting fetal DNA in maternal blood 2010-12-08 , 21:19:30 kos Nyerges Synthetic genome controlled cell by JCVI 2010-12-08 , 19:07:29 訪客 The discovery of the enzyme Tet1 for the synthesis of 5 methyl-hydroxy cytosine by Aravind, Anjana Roa and colleagues (published in Science) is likely to open up new possibilities by acting as the sixth base in addition to A, T, G, C and meC. I think this is a fundamental discovery! Conversion of 5-methylcytosine to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine in mammalian DNA by MLL partner TET1. Impaired hydroxylation of 5-methylcytosine in myeloid cancers with mutant TET2. 2010-12-08 , 15:02:10 訪客 I don't know - something about extrasolar planets ? 2010-12-08 , 4:42:12 訪客 Quantum Physics Breakthrough: Scientists Find an Equation for Materials Innovation ScienceDaily (Feb. 26, 2010) Princeton engineers have made a breakthrough in an 80-year-old quandary in quantum physics, paving the way for the development of new materials that could make electronic devices smaller and cars more energy efficient. 2010-12-08 , 4:40:42 訪客 Quantum Entanglement Achieved in Solid-State Circuitry - Jan 12, 2010 2010-12-08 , 4:39:42 Kim Dudzik Oxygen on Rhea? Totally amazing. My personal pick for breakthrough of 2010. 2010-12-07 , 12:32:26 Rafael Roesler 1) Exposure to an enriched environment reduces cancer growth through a BDNF-dependent mechanism (Cao et al. http://www.cell.com/abstract/S0092-8674(10)00565-9) 2) Brain tumor stem cells give rise to endothelium (Wang et al., http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature09624.html) 2010-12-07 , 6:37:22 訪客 Last week's anouncement of aging reversal in the mouse 2010-12-06 , 9:30:00 說讚的人 訪客 Kevin It has to be the ability to look at a persons genes and figure out if they will live a long life. I can't wait to find out how long I will live! 2010-12-06 , 4:50:25 說讚的人 訪客 Ankur Sharma No doubt Synthetic life by Craig Venter 2010-12-06
刘实同志遇难已有半月了吧。听说是被双规了，有人还说是三规。不管是几规，他半月没发一文恐怕不是装死。他那种眼睛里揉不得沙子的人、能憋那么长时间的气，还真是够高人的。 好像还真有人故意到他的《 刘实: 求真留实, 去邪扶正 》刺他，看这老刘头是否真的死了： 新浪网友 2010-10-30 老刘够朋友！肖进去了，刘也不好意思一个人在外面呆着吧？ 新浪网友 2010-10-30 到哪里去了？这个问题嘛，问问肖xx肯定知道的，他们是好朋友，岂能瞒着？是不是到一起去了？前赴后继？ _ddq 2010-11-01 仅举一例证明刘大傻子反方的造谣-----也许不是造谣，而是智商太低，理解水平太低？ 新浪网友 2010-11-03 终审就要进行了，刘高人还不出来效传国？再不吭声你那同济笑友可要被加薪了！ 可刘帅还是有几个兵不树倒狐孙散，有人留言： 新浪网友 2010-10-31 一个刘实倒下去，千万个刘实站起来。 请看刘实同志赵华敦促阴沟鼠潜水喷粪惯犯方舟子公开应战： 我编剧赵华现在正式宣布：今天不算，给你方抄抄三天时间好好准备资料，然后公开亮出你方是民的大名和极限本事来应战吧！从打假方舟子第一案到十七案，随你先挑哪一案，咱们往狠里掐。 新浪网友 2010-10-31 还有刘实的同志廖俊林、方舟子的叛徒寻正也跳起来了，看他最近在科学网的博文： Wowuyu：方舟子篡改纽约时报 布拉格之春：抄袭行为被曝光，方舟子欲盖弥张，乙醚与辣椒水 双规了就应老实点，三规了就更不能乱说乱动。可有些人就是江山易改、秉性难移。这不，双规的刘实还管国事，针对肖方案的 终 审，给传国打气。说什么被和谐了的事不可能被再搅乱，而从 方舟子发的肖传国雇凶谋害二方案北京一中院刑事裁定书看，高人就是高，从双规处传出的话都那么准！有人还说：刘高人从三规处传出第二句话：搅乱了的人都要被和谐。 后来又说： 搅局者已外逃。在主子的保护下圣地哑歌。 看来这双规/ 三规 了的 刘实还是不老实，竟能发出牛声来。 其实，他还真的没闲着，这不， 双规/ 三规期间他还修 奶车。下面是他用鹰歌里稀发给NATURE（奶车即《自然》）的一些挑毛病和提修理意见的电子信（不知怎么也传到我的邮箱里）： Dear Nature Publishing Executive Editor Clarke, I was reading the most recent retraction in Nature (see below) and found that the link for detailed PDF is not working (see blow). Could you please ask the related staff to check on it and fix it ASAP? Thank you for your attention! Sincerely yours, Shi V. Liu MD PhD The large-conductance Ca2+-activated K+ channel is essential for innate immunity Jatinder Ahluwalia, Andrew Tinker, Lucie H. Clapp, Michael R. Duchen, Andrey Y. Abramov, Simon Pope, Muriel Nobles Anthony W. Segal + et al PDF files (32K) The Supplementary Information accompanying this retraction is currently unavailable. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7320/extref/nature09562-s1.pdf Error: page not found Sorry, it appears one of our links is broken. Please email us to report this broken link. Until we fix the link try using our search to find the page you want. Alternatively browse our sites using the list below: Dear Editor Clarke, This morning I reported you a broken link for the retraction supplement (see message below). Now the linked PDF document is shown but contains only one sentence which states: The Supplementary Information accompanying this retraction is currently unavailable. I think if Nature is unready to release this Supplementary Information it should be better not to given that link.Otherwise people may suspect that Nature is withdrawing some information for some reasons. Sincerely, Shi V. Liu MD PhD
首先说明，这篇博文的题目是风马牛相集的结果。 本来，《 Cell 》撤稿与刘实无关，因为所撤之稿非刘实所写。 但《 Cell 》撤稿却又与刘实相集，因为它是刘实狂言的 CNS 生命科学论文至少三分之一是错的而应撤稿之刘论的具体体现之一。 《 Cell 》的最新一篇撤稿是： Cell, Volume 143, Issue 3 , 485, 29 October 2010 doi:10.1016/j.cell.2010.10.011 Retraction Notice to: Assembly of Endogenous oskar mRNA Particles for Motor-Dependent Transport in the Drosophila Oocyte Alvar Trucco , Imre Gaspar and Anne Ephrussi (Cell 139 , 983 998; November 25, 2009) In this paper, we used cryoimmuno-electron microscopy and live-cell imaging to investigate the sequential assembly of oskar mRNA into an mRNP competent for transport from the Drosophila nurse cells to the oocyte posterior pole. We have recently identified instances in all of the figures where the cryoimmuno-EM data were inappropriately manipulated by the first author. The manipulations do not affect the live-cell imaging data. We are in the process of reanalyzing the raw experimental cryoimmuno-EM data but can already state that the published conclusions are not fully consistent with the raw data. We are therefore retracting the paper. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience that this might have caused. 而刘实在双规前几天还发表了 《细胞》撤稿，一大群作者的成就感大减 一文。调侃《 Cell 》把另一篇几十名作者合写的一篇论文给撤了，并说：这一撤稿，好多人的成就就被打了水漂。 所以，现在倒念起刘实来，我还真被他的英明折服，更为他的勇敢感动。 下面是我从刘实的求真网站上找到的一篇刘实投给《 Cell 》而被拒稿、但后来发表在高人所编的真顶尖（锐）杂志的文章。按他的文章所指，《 Cell 》撤稿的力度还远远不够。而这篇文章所列的还是刘实 2008 年前的投稿。好像他后来还给《 Cell 》投过一些也被拒稿。但他的文章现在倒念起来还都是对的（在我看来）。 A Summary of Cell s Rejections on Shi V. Lius Submissions Title Submitted Rejected Published* Searching for the Deep Root and Fundamental Mechanism of Biotic Aging 20050311 20050318 LB 5:89-91, 2005 HTM , PDF Cellular Senescence: What Does It Really Mean? 20051004 20051016 LB 5:308-310, 2005 HTM , PDF Piggyback on a Nobel Prize or Show Its True Spirit 20060109 20060203 LB 6:12-15, 2006 HTM , PDF Stop Playing the Cell Differentiation Tune for Caulobacter 20060405 20060407 LB 6: 31-32, 2006 HTM , PDF Cell Division versus Cell Reproduction 20060816 20060817 LB 6:62-64, 2006 HTM , PDF Revisit Semi-Conservative DNA Replication and Immortal DNA Strand Hypothesis 20060824 20060825 LB 6:54-61, 2006 HTM , PDF Why we keep losing excellence in young scientists? 20060820 20060825 LB 6:65-66, 2006 HTM , PDF Are Stem Cells Really Immortal Cells? 20060909 20061002 LB 6:71-75, 2006 HTM , PDF Sorry, I Am Not Your Grandfather 20061117 20061118 Pioneer 1: 5-7, 2006 HTM , PDF Stem Cells Self-Renewal or Cell Biologists Self-Cheating? 20061219 20061223 LB 6:106-109, 2006 HTM , PDF What Is a Stem Cell? 20070129 20070130 LB 7:12-17, 2007 HTM , PDF Lius Message Blocked by Top Journals 20070314 20070315 Sci. Ethics 2: 5-6, 2007 HTM , PDF Respecting Published Answers for Important Questions on Epigenetics 20070320 20070411 Top Watch 2: 19-20,2007 HTM , PDF No Real Evidence for Round Trip in Spermatogenesis 20070423 No Reply! LB 7:26-28, 2007 HTM , PDF Immortal Strand Does Not Exist but Nonrandom Strand Segregation Should Be Universal 20070722 20070803 LB 7:26-28, 2007 HTM , PDF An alternative view on nonrandom DNA segregation and cell life 20080810 No Reply Unpublished Induction of pluripotency: where is the evidence? 20081125 No Reply Top Watch 2:94, 2007 HTM , PDF iPS cells are man-made cancer cells 20080121 No Reply LB 8: 16-18, 2008 HTM , PDF Evidence for Selection of Pre-existing Stem Cells Rather than Induction of iPS Cells 20080501 No Reply LB 8: 52-54, 2008 HTM , PDF * LB = Logical Biology .This and other journals can be read at http://im1.biz 原文链接在： HTM , PDF
刘实同志壮烈牺牲已有一周时间了吧。过去他博动时还不觉得他存在的重要，有时还烦他博得过多，让我老花眼看都看不过来。特别是他的博风---事事都给原文出处，让我老朽之躯还要凭求真之劲奔波于各链接之间累死人也。不过比某些人说话不靠谱，抄袭不引文，因此相信那些惊人之语却看不到一点依据还是好得多。 刘实同志被双规看来是真的了。要不然他一周都不发一声恐怕也会被憋出病来。总盼望他能尽快结束双规，开始正常的博动，所以我每天还是要光顾一下这个把我的博客当同志的人的博客看看。不过我没看到任何新的刘文，却看到如下牛粪类评论： 新浪网友 2010-10-25 08:24:30 善有善报，恶有恶报，如今满口喷牛屎的人也闭嘴了，可见天有眼。 新浪网友 2010-10-25 08:26:44 你也尝尝锤子的味道如何？ 新浪网友 2010-10-26 08:20:42 稽教授这一炮开得好，一下就把不在茅坑里拉屎的老牛打哑巴了！ 但刘实同志到底为何原因被双规？我想跟 稽教授的那一炮没关系，毕 竟稽教授也（还曾）是 刘实的同志。而且按 9-29 政治局集体学习是胡总的讲话精神，刘实同志的言语过激、顶多也是人民内部的矛盾。 我想，刘实同志的双规最可能还是与他袭击奶车有关。 刘实同志双规前曾给我及王德华教授发来下面一篇旨在投给《Nasture》的一封Correspondence的草稿。 Treating and dealing with biohackers SIR We are horrified by the classification of dedicated scientists as life hackers ( Nature News Feature 467, 650-652, 2010) or biohackers ( Nature Editorial 467, 634, 2010) when their exposed activities are nothing but only promoting life science and enhancing biology. Hacking is a very negative term that usually refers to re-configuring or re-programming of a system to function in ways not facilitated by the owner, administrator, or designer ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_(technology) ).The biohackers exposed by the Nature Editorial or life hackers detailed by the Nature News Feature are just some highly dedicated scientists who are seeking truth through alternative ways.Many of them squeeze their limited spare time and some of them even sacrifice their own careers to do something good for society at their own expense and cost.How could they be classified as hackers? The only way that these dedicated scientists can be treated as hackers is to treat their discoveries as nonsense (to conventional wisdom) and their insights as nuisance (to mainstream knowledge).Indeed, many established authorities and professional mainstreamers tend to do so when they heard of amateur discoveries.This attitude is actually vividly reflected by the editorial statements like Most biohackers are hobbyists who delight in crafting their own equipment and who tackle projects no more sophisticated than those found in an advanced high-school biology lab and garage labs are unlikely to solve the world's energy or health problems any time soon . However, history has shown that most truly great scientific discoveries were made in some unconventional ways.For example, Einstein made his greatest discoveries before he finished his college degree.It is his shoe-maker job that supported his basic living and his off-duty discovering efforts.In the ancient time, of course, there were not even any truly professional scientists.Those dedicated people engaged in scientific research would be called as hackers, if hacking was a known activity harmful to an establishment. Nowadays, most scientists do science in their career jobs and thus the goal of scientific research is even changed somehow: not for truth but for money.One outcome of this mutation in some scientists is the increasingly occurrence of faking discoveries in various ways.When well-paid scientists would rather engage in some truth-hiding and even lie-making activities, some hacking on this corrupted system may be necessary. Fortunately, there are still some odd scientists who would rather maintain a busy life in their spare time, spend their money on some non-leisure research and even give up their career in exchange for time spent on some truth-seeking research.However, how society has treated them so far? It was a true irony that a Breakthrough of the Year in Science (314, 1848-1849, 2006) was made by a lonely Perelman who solved a century-old mathematics problem by publishing his discovery only in a web archive and even refused to re-publish it in any peer-reviewed journal ( Top Watch 1: 18-20, 2006).It is also interesting to know that the winner for this years Nobel Prize for physics actually won a different kind of Nobel award the Ig Nobel ten years ago ( http://improbable.com/ig/ ).Shit! reported of saying that when Geim received the phone call from the Nobel Assembly ( Science 330, 159, 2010). He was not sure if he would display both the awards together in his office ( http://news.in.msn.com/international/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4446465 ). If Nature would insist on calling those dedicated scientists as hackers, we would recommend Nature run a special report on a most dangerous biohacker or life hacker in the scientific history.This man has self-claimed of making the greatest discoveries in life science in his spare time ( http://im1.biz/Liu_Discovery_English.htm ).But he has been called as a spammer three years ago by a Nature editor ( http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/LB2009V9N2A9_Editorial.htm ) when he publicly criticizing iPS research as pseudo-science ( http://im1.biz/iPS.htm ).This man wrote to the Nobel Assembly three times in the past three years to block efforts for awarding Yamanaka, the father of iPS cells, a Nobel Prize ( Top Watch 3, 1-3, 2008 and 4, 36-37, 2009; Pioneer 5, 1-3, 2010).But he has been banned from publishing in Nature or even posting comment under his real name (http://im1.biz/Nature_Delete.htm , http://im1.biz/Nature.htm , http://im1.biz/albums/userpics/10001/SE2010V5N1A2_Macmillan.htm ) after taking Nature into court ( http://im1.biz/Truth.htm ).This man runs a powerful hacking system the Truthfinding Cyberpress (TFCP; http://im1.biz ) which hosts a fleet of new-generation scientific journals such as Logical Biology , Scientific Ethics , Top Watch , International Medicine , and Pioneer . Interestingly, this bio-hacker or life hacker announced the debut of his double-open (open access and open review) scientific journal Logical Biology 10 year ago in Nature , by inserting that advertisement into a Correspondence entitled Debating controversies can enhance creativity ( Nature 403, 592, 2000).Recently, his hacking was discovered but his hacking was not publicly denounced, even though secretly his TFCP website was repeatedly hacked.Most recently, the hacker even left a message on the hacked TFCP website saying hacked by uLTRATurK. What is the name of this bio-hacker in centuries?His name is Shi V. Liu. Let us expose all of his hacking activities and deal with them effectively. 刘实同志的这篇Correspondence不仅指责《Nature》把自费业余时间搞生物学科研的科学家当成bio-hacker or life hacker的不当，更把自己比《Nature》所黑的更黑的行径暴露于《Nature》，还公开叫板《Nature》处理他这个超一流的bio-hacker or life hacker。 如此看来，刘实同志真是一个豪杰。可惜他没击坏奶车，却可能已被奶车压死。 但刘实同志的这一死，是比泰山还重、还是比鸿毛还轻？ 为有牺牲多壮志，敢叫日月换新天！ 现在是不是黎明前的黑暗？
最近因我转载了刘实本人和他转载的揭露方舟子唯一的具自主知识产权的文章涉嫌数据造假的博文，而且又斗胆挑战我们院长对方的辩护，就像捅了马蜂窝似的遭到群峰乱螫，那些骂词之花稍可谓闻所未闻，见所未见，就是小时候在农村观看泼妇骂街也没见过如此高水平的骂术。好在我经过文化大革命的锻炼而没因生气而暴亡。练就了一张厚脸皮，倒觉得他们的骂与我无关，而是展示他们自己的学识和道德，也是在为他们支持的人增光添色（增的什么光添的什么色我就不知道了），所以我早就宣布过无论什么情况下绝不删评（但科学网编辑们删不删，删那些我就无权干涉了，就是想干涉也干涉不了，但我希望他们存住，将来出一本《国骂大全》一定畅销，会赚取不少的版权费）。前一段与李铭辩论时我就曾这么宣布过，宣布后他倒不敢再在我博文后留评了，真是怪哉！ 不过说回来，也有许多不同意我的观点但又为我担心的朋友留言或来信劝我不要再掺和这些事情，搞坏了名身不合算，我非常感谢他们对我的关心。对来信我都一一回信表示谢意。 有一位朋友在信的最后说 刘实也是个大骗子，您可以随便在网上搜搜，他信口雌黄，歇斯底里，转他的博文，是非常可笑的事情。 说实话我对刘实还真是不怎么了解。只是上次与我们院长就《自然》所称的中国的文化冲突公开辩论时看到他的评论后才偶尔看看他的博客。这次经朋友提醒，我又进到他的博客进行了较全面的了解。真是不看不知道一看吓一跳，这才发现他比唐骏、甚至于比方舟子还牛气冲天，竟发表过《华人带给西方世界的一套圣诞大餐：刘实世界第一的重大发现》一文（ http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_5020416701007u3c.html ）。 他不仅常批方舟子，对我们院长的批判也是连篇累牍，极为不恭，而且他还斗胆包天地批国人心目中的圣刊Nature，Science和Cell。竟不知圣人训，不可违的祖训和中华民族在洋大人面前谦卑的美德，而且就凭他在影响因子不到1的《中国科学》上的一篇文章就说应该得诺贝尔奖，真是狂妄自大到了极限。真把我吓出一身冷汗，可我过去还转载他的博文，真是死有余辜。 看来我是被刘实这个大骗子给忽悠了，所以请大家帮我一起揭露刘实的骗局。特别是请比我有更高新的科学前沿各相关专业知识的大家们对刘实的所谓超一流的世界第一发现给于有力的批驳。并提供他造假的确凿证据，以把他批倒批臭，免得他再骗别人。 或许有人会骂我不够朋友，人家刘实曾对我拔刀相助，我怎能变节。可面对比文化大革命还强的科学网疾风暴雨，我又有啥办法？现在大家对刘实这个污蔑陷害他们心中偶像的元凶竞不闻不问，倒拿我这个从犯开刀。我怨枉呀！ 关键是刘实还真可能是个大骗子，要不然为何Nature会允许发表称刘实是疯子的评论，而他把当今世界最伟大的生命科学发现即iPS细胞的返老还童重编程说成是伪科学，还要打诺贝尔奖候选人山中教授的假，这不是有些太狂了？ 刘实博客一直把《 方舟子说刘实 》做为敌对链接，但方舟子说刘实反对的 学术腐败 与一般人理解的有差异，与新语丝网站的宗旨不符看来还是有道理的，而方舟子把他比作妄人但也只是删了他几篇文章而没打他的假说明方舟子还是宽宏大量的。 但这个刘实却越搞越邪，昨日还宣布将我们院长的《科学网》博客也列入敌对链接，刚刚还看到他又挑战清华大学的施一公，重提他那两年多也只有复旦大学的金力副校长理过一回的 《 致中国生命科学领军人的公开信 》。一个名不见经传的人竟猖狂到如此程度，真是不打不足以平民愤！ 当然，或许还会有人认为我自私， 为了躲避批评而有意将刘实推到前面当挡箭拍来实现自保。这种想法是有的，但决非 自私。因为我知道，被 刘实 忽悠的绝非我一个人，看看他博客的同志 链接，就知道可能有多少人已被他 忽悠了。 在此，我郑重要求 刘实将我的博客从他的 同志 链接删除，如要链接，顶多也像过去一样放在相关链接里。如果刘实看到我这篇博文就认定我变节了还不够义气地反戈一击而要把我列入敌对链接。那我也没办法。 作为一个科学家，我认为最安全的应是始终站在真理的一边。从科学主流的反应看，刘实所谓的超一流发现可能根本就不能入流。但他却要以一个高人的姿态来领导世界的科学革命。所以，我担心，如果刘实的发现有假，那他一定是比黄禹锡还大得多的假。因为黄禹锡的假只是在干细胞的子孙下传，而刘实称他的发现是生命科学最根本的革命，连达尔文这个老祖宗所发现的所有生命起源于同一共同祖先细胞的命都要革掉，还把自己比作哥白尼，称他的生命科学发现就尤如是发现地球绕太阳而不是太阳绕地球转一样重要。 难道这地球上所有的生命科学家这几百年来都错到了认为太阳绕地球转的程度？这个刘实到底是哥白尼还是一个撮白泥？请大家拍砖。 为了方便大家寻找证据，特将他的《华人带给西方世界的一套圣诞大餐：刘实世界第一的重大发现》一文（http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_5020416701007u3c.html）转载如下： 华人带给西方世界的一套圣诞大餐：刘实世界第一的重大发现 (2007-12-24 20:09:06) 西方的圣诞节就要到了。我实现我的诺言来到美国独立宣言的诞生地费城与二十九年前中国恢复高考后走到同一所大学的老同学相聚。在此之前，老同学们一直催问到底我能否过来聚会。我说，我正忙着打日本人造的假飞机。如果我胜利了还健在，我就来。如果我牺牲了，就请老同学将我的尸体取回掩埋。 真是老天有眼，没让日本人造的假飞机成为《科学》杂志的年度突破或是《自然》杂志自己所发文章的最爱。看到顶尖杂志这一不自然但还科学的年终选择，我心里已明白我终于让高傲的顶尖杂志低下了头，下一步就等它们向世人认其不停地卖假发现而压真发现的顶奸之罪了。 一觉醒来或者说夜不能寐地起来上网查看顶尖杂志对我已投的另两篇批驳IPS假飞机的文章有无答复，遗憾地是快一个月了，这些顶尖杂志还不能对一些明确的批驳给定论。相比它们越来越快的放飞IPS假飞机的速度，我不免怀疑顶尖杂志是否有顶尖的勇气公开承认自己的错误。 不过我在网上的时间并没白费，我又看到中国的争议科学家徐荣祥发布 生命科学最前沿圣诞宣言 。同时收到一位新浪网友发来的电子信，询问我你的所有第１，真实存在吗？。 由此想到，何不将我已在求真网络出版社的IM1网站 ( http://im1.biz 公布的我的 世界第一的重大发现 作为一套圣诞大餐送给西方世界。同时也将西方顶尖杂志所谓的第一发现拿出来对比一下，看谁是真正的世界第一。我希望读者看后对我为什么敢说顶尖杂志顶尖假有所了解。同时更希望大家看到一批真正要引领21世纪科学发展的真顶尖也真道德的杂志已在世界的知识海洋扬帆起航、破浪前进！ ) 刘实 2007 年12月24日于美国独立宣言的诞生地费城 注： 为便于西方雷达看见这些中国飞机，本文所列之表已有英文版( http://im1.biz/Liu_Discovery_English.htm 或 http://im1.biz/Liu_Discovery_English.pdf 。事实上，如同我的许多文章一样，本中文版的列表是从英文版翻译而来。原因之一是很多涉及的文章是英文出版的，因此以英文表述更为原始和准确。原因之二是本人（在电脑上）写英文比写中文要快的多。这也是为什么我已发表的大批英文文章目前只能是有极少数关键文章被译成中文与读者见面的原因。 ) 发现领域 及传统观点 刘实世界第一的发现和观点 （代表作发表时间和杂志） 其他人所谓第一发现和观点（发表时间和杂志） 细菌/细胞生命： 细菌没有自然的衰老与死亡； 有些细胞如干细胞和癌细胞是不死的细胞； 细菌/细胞的生命周期等于细胞周期； 一个母细菌/细胞分裂为两个子细菌/细胞； 细菌/细胞的年龄在0和1之间反复循环。 细菌有自然的衰老与死亡； 所有细胞包括干细胞和癌细胞都是会死的细胞； 细菌/细胞的生命周期长于细胞周期（生殖周期），因为细菌/细胞的生命过程应包括还不具有生殖能力的幼年期、有生殖能力的成年期和丧失生殖能力的老年期； 一个母细菌/细胞生殖一个子细菌/细胞；此母细菌/细胞并未变成一个子细菌/细胞而是继续生存并可生殖更多子细菌/细胞； 细菌/细胞的年龄可按它所生存的时间记录，细菌/细胞的年龄是随其生存时间的增长而不可逆地变老； 生物衰老在进化上讲是非生物衰老的延续，生物之所以衰老和死亡是因为它们是有可降解的非生命物质组成； 细胞分裂是一根本性错误概念，子细胞应是从母细菌不同层次的复制过程中生殖而来。 (11, 12, 15, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 29, 32-37) 不对称分裂细菌有衰老现象但仍认为一个母细菌分裂为两个子细菌 (2)； 对称分裂细菌有衰老死亡现象但仍认为一个母细菌分裂为两个子细菌 (38)； 干细胞有衰老现象但仍认为一个母细胞分裂为两个子细胞 (4, 5)； 一个母细菌分裂而来的两个细菌是母子关系但认为衰老是由分裂过程中损害分配的不对称造成 (1)； DNA/ 染色体的分配规律： 细胞分裂时DNA/染色体的分配是随机的。 细胞生殖时DNA/染色体的分配不是随机的而是有特定规律的，即母细胞保留老的DNA模板链/染色体而新模板链/染色体由子细胞获得； DNA/ 染色体的年龄与细胞的年龄一致； DNA/ 染色体的损伤与老化是细胞发生内在因素决定的衰老与死亡的一个重要机制； 干细胞所含的DNA/染色体是多细胞生物体内较老的DNA/染色体，因此有受衰老影响而发生变异和癌变的可能性； DNA 年龄与细胞年龄一致的细胞生殖更加发展了DNA半保留复制的生物学意义。(10, 13, 17, 19, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33) 在不同的胚胎干细胞分别观察到非随机和随机的染色体分配，认为非随机染色体分配与细胞分化有关但仍认为一个母细胞分裂为两个子细胞 (3)； 干细胞呈现高度的非随机DNA分配但非干细胞呈现随机DNA分配，仍认为一个母细胞分裂为两个子细胞，并认为获得DNA老模板链的子细胞是自新的干细胞而其所含老模板链即不死的DNA链 (6) 遗传定义及内含 ： 遗传只是指碱基序列遗传，DNA碱基修饰不可遗传。 遗传包括DNA碱基序列遗传和DNA碱基修饰遗传。碱基序列遗传是物种稳定性的基本保证，而DNA碱基修饰遗传为生物对环境的适应性提供了分子生物学基础。(19, 26, 31) 尚未见他人发表完全同样全面和如此透彻的观点。 生命起源与进化： 全部生物来自一个共同的细胞祖先。 生物不可能全部来自一个共同的细胞祖先，而是可能从不同的非细胞祖先起源。不同起源的生物的分布与沿续呈放射状，其进化过程可是并行的，不同分支的生物系列可有不同的进化速度，不同的环境有不同的适者(14, 16)。 生物共同的祖先是一个细胞群 (40)，进化过程可是集合的(39)和多条并行的(7)，并可呈爆炸性 (8) 人类起源与进化： 不同人种来自共同人类祖先，人类进化是由黑/劣到白/优的单一线性模式。 不同的人种更可能是来之不同的非人类祖先，不同的人种之间有不可否认的生物学差异，但此差异不直接等于人种间优和劣的区别，作为共同人类的不同人种应享有基本共同的人权，人类应改变排异消敌的思维而共建存异求同的和谐社会 (9, 22)。 反对种族歧视是人类的共同愿望，建立和谐社会是中国领导人向国际社会发出的倡议，但尚未见有人从生命起源与进化的新角度提供这些理念的科学依据。 参考文献及关键点注解 1. Ackermann, M., L. Chao, C. T. Bergstrom, and M. Doebeli. 2007. On the evolutionary origin of aging. Aging Cell 6: 235-44. 2. Ackermann, M., S. C. Stearns, and U. Jenal. 2003. Senescence in a bacterium with asymmetric division. Science 300: 1920. 3. Armakolas, A., and A. J. Klar. 2006. Cell type regulates selective segregation of mouse chromosome 7 DNA strands in mitosis. Science 311: 1146-9. 4. Brack, A. S., M. J. Conboy, S. Roy, M. Lee, C. J. Kuo, C. Keller, and T. A. Rando. 2007. Increased Wnt signaling during aging alters muscle stem cell fate and increases fibrosis. Science 317: 807-10. 5. Chambers, S. M., C. A. Shaw, C. Gatza, C. J. Fisk, L. A. Donehower, and M. A. Goodell. 2007. Aging hematopoietic stem cells decline in function and exhibit epigenetic dysregulation. PLoS Biol 5: e201. . 6. Conboy, M. J., A. O. Karasov, and T. A. Rando. 2007. High incidence of non-random template strand segregation and asymmetric fate determination in dividing stem cells and their progeny. PLoS Biol 5: 1120-1126 . 7. Doolittle, W. F., and E. Bapteste. 2007. Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 2043-9. 8. Koonin, E. V. 2007. The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution. Biol Direct 2: 21. 9. Liu, S. V. 2007. Admitting different origins for human species, constructing harmonious society for human beings Pioneer 2: 39-42. 10. Liu, S. V. 2006. Are stem cells really immortal cells? Logical Biology 6: 71-75. 11. Liu, S. V. 2006. Cell division versus cell reproduction: No evidence for cell division. Logical Biology 6: 62-64. 12. Liu, S. V. 2006. Cell does not cycle and cannot be divided. Logical Biology 6: 103-105. 13. Liu, S. V. 2005. Cellular senescence: What does it really mean? Logical Biology 5: 308-310. 14. Liu, S. V. 2007. Darwin was indeed wrong but Koonin's revolution may not be novel. Biol. Direct 2: 21 Comment. 15. Liu, S. V. 2005. Debating cell-synchronization methodologies: further points and alternative answers. Trends Biotechnol 23: 9-10. 16. Liu, S. V. 2006. Evolution: an integrated theory - Criticisms on Darwinism - Fifteen years ago. Pioneer 1: 10-28. 17. Liu, S. V. 2007. Immortal strand does not exist but nonrandom strand segregation should be universal. Logical Biology 7: 50-60. 18. Liu, S. V. 2007. In division we lose. Pioneer 2: 27-31. 19. Liu, S. V. 2005. Linking DNA aging with cell aging and combining genetics with epigenetics. Logical Biology 5: 51-55. 20. Liu, S. V. 2000. Logical fallacies and methodological mistakes in microbiology - An overview. Logical Biology 1: 25-31. 21. Liu, S. V. 2004. Method and apparatus for producing age-synchronized cells. US patent US6767734B . 22. Liu, S. V. 2007. A natural outcome long-predicted by an alternative theory on the origin and evolution of life. Top Watch 2: 47-48. 23. Liu, S. V. 2004. Prokaryotic aging: Breaking through the cell cycle limitation. Logical Biology 4: 1-6. 24. Liu, S. V. 2006. Put the immortality concept to death. Logical Biology 6: 52-53. 25. Liu, S. V. 2006. Rectify the distorted microscopic view on life: an open letter to microbiologists. Microbe 1: 1. 26. Liu, S. V. 2007. Respecting published answers for important questions on epigenetics. Top Watch 2: 19-20. 27. Liu, S. V. 2006. Revisit semi-conservative DNA replication and immortal DNA strand hypothesis. Logical Biology 6: 54-61. 28. Liu, S. V. 2005. Searching for the deep root and fundamental mechanism of biotic aging. Logical Biology 5: 89-91. 29. Liu, S. V. 2005. Single-cell microbiology needs visions. ASM News 71: 157-158. 30. Liu, S. V. 2006. Stem cells' self-renewal or cell biologists' self-cheating? Logical Biology 6: 106-109. 31. Liu, S. V. 2005. A theoretical framework for understanding biotic aging from molecule to organism in multicellular life. Logical Biology 5: 109-116. 32. Liu, S. V. 1999. Tracking bacterial growth in liquid media and a new bacterial life model. Science in China (Series C: Life Science) (Chinese) 29: 571-579. 33. Liu, S. V. 1999. Tracking bacterial growth in liquid media and a new bacterial life model. Science in China (Series C: Life Science) (English) 42: 644-654. 34. Liu, S. V. 2000. Viable but non-culturable (VBNC) microorganisms: A misnomer or a whistle-blower? Logical Biology 1: 17-20. 35. Liu, S. V. 2000. What is bacterial life? Logical Biology 1: 5-16. 36. Liu, S. V., and J. J. Zhang. 2004. Age synchronization of Caulobacter crescentus and implications for prokaryotic aging study. Logical Biology 4: 7-15. 37. Liu, S. V., and J. J. Zhang. 2004. Crossband in Caulobacter s stalk is a cell reproduction remnant and bacterial age indicator. Logical Biology 4: 16-27. 38. Stewart, E. J., R. Madden, G. Paul, and F. Taddei. 2005. Aging and death in an organism that reproduces by morphologically symmetric division. PLoS Biol 3: 295-300. 39. Vetsigian, K., C. Woese, and N. Goldenfeld. 2006. Collective evolution and the genetic code. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103: 10696-701. . 40. Woese, C. 1998. The universal ancestor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95: 6854-9. * 我欢迎对我上述描述中错误或误导的任何批评。任何对我声称的异议都将在合适的求真出版系统杂志客观地发表。
标签: 刘实
